The Nuclear Threat

IMAGINE two boys in a closed garage, standing on a floor covered with gasoline. Each one holds a box of matches . . .

This well illustrates the situation existing today between the two superpowers. Both possess arsenals of fearsome nuclear weapons that if used would result in mutual destruction. Their missiles stand ominously ready to kill, the gyroscopes of their guidance systems spinning rapidly.

Thousands of these messengers of death hide beneath the ground in concrete silos. Hundreds more lurk within the hulls of submarines and yet more beneath the swept-back wings of jet planes. A frightened world wonders, What will happen if the weapons are ever used?

A four-star general answers. He says that a nuclear war would be “the greatest catastrophe in history by many orders of magnitude.” Adds a scientist: “There is a real danger of the extinction of humanity.”

An ancient Greek legend tells of a man named Damocles who was made to sit beneath a sword suspended by a single strand of hair. That sword could well represent nuclear weapons, and Damocles, all humanity. Remove the sword, some say, and Damocles will be secure. But is such a prospect likely? Developments in recent years have given hope to many:

March 1983: U.S. President Reagan proposes the Strategic Defense Initiative, scientific research designed to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.”

January 1986: Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev proposes to eliminate all nuclear weapons by the end of this century. He later states: “We are ready for talks not only on ending the arms race, but on the biggest possible arms reductions, up to general and complete disarmament.”

December 1987: Gorbachev and Reagan sign a treaty for missile reduction. According to a news report, “it is the first time since the dawn of the Atomic Age that the superpowers have agreed not just to restrain nuclear weapons but to eliminate entire systems.”

How likely is it, though, that these latest developments will ever result in a world without nuclear weapons? What obstacles stand in the way of success?

The Nuclear Dilemma

ATOP a spindly tower in the predawn New Mexico desert hung the chunky metal sphere the men called Gadget. In bunkers five and a half miles [9 km] away, the physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and soldiers fidgeted, looked at their watches, and wondered if Gadget would really work.

It did. At 15 seconds before 5:30 a.m., Gadget exploded, releasing its nuclear energy in a millionth of a second. It whipped up a fireball that could have been seen from another planet and generated a blast that was heard 200 miles [300 km] away. The heat of Gadget’s explosion​—hotter at its center than the center of the sun—​fused the desert sand into a half-mile ring of jade-colored radioactive glass [nearly a kilometer across]. Some swore that the sun rose twice that day.

On August 6, 1945, 21 days later, the second atom bomb shattered the Japanese city of Hiroshima, eventually causing the death of an estimated 148,000 people. The nuclear age had begun.

That was 43 years ago. Weapons up to 4,000 times more powerful have since been tested. The combined power of all the world’s warheads is estimated to equal 20 billion tons of TNT​—over a million times the killing power of the Hiroshima bomb!

Call for Elimination

According to a 1983 World Health Organization study, a full-scale nuclear war would kill a billion people outright. A second billion would die later because of the blast, fire, and radiation. Recent studies are even more pessimistic. Understandably, then, a cry has arisen for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Not all calls for their elimination are on purely humanitarian grounds, however. Some argue that nuclear weapons simply have little or no value in actual warfare. Because of their awesome destructive power, only the most extreme provocation could ever justify their use. Thus, the United States did not use them in Korea or Viet Nam, the British did not use them in the Falklands, nor did the Soviets use them in Afghanistan. Says former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: “Nuclear weapons serve no military purpose whatsoever. They are totally useless​—except only to deter one’s opponent from using them.”

Similarly, nuclear weapons are not of much use as a diplomatic stick for threatening or influencing other nations. The superpowers are mutually vulnerable. And as for nonnuclear powers, they are often emboldened to stand up to the superpowers with little fear of nuclear retaliation.

Finally, there is the cost. According to a study published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, during the years 1945-85 the United States alone produced about 60,000 nuclear warheads.a The cost? Almost $82,000,000,000​—a lot of money for something they hope never to use.

The Bomb as a Deterrent

The concept of deterrence is probably as old as the history of conflict. But in the nuclear age, deterrence has taken on new dimensions. Any nation contemplating nuclear attack is assured of swift and devastating nuclear retaliation.

General B. L. Davis, commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, thus says: “A convincing case can be made that nuclear weapons . . . have made the world a safer place. They have by no means ended warfare; thousands continue to die every year in conflicts that are by no means minor to the nations involved. But superpower involvement in such conflicts is carefully calculated to avoid direct confrontation due to the potential for escalation into a major conflagration​—nuclear or conventional.”

In any household with loaded guns, though, there is always the risk that somebody will be shot by mistake. The same principle holds true in a world full of nuclear weapons. Nuclear war could thus erupt under the following circumstances:

(1) A computer error or a mechanical malfunction that makes a country think it is under nuclear attack. The response would be a nuclear counterattack.

(2) Nuclear weapons could be acquired by an extremist or terrorist power that would be less restrained from using them than are the present nuclear powers.

(3) The escalation of a small war in an area where the interests of the superpowers are involved​—such as the Persian Gulf.

Despite such dangers, the nations have thus far maintained a policy of security through deterrence. Yet, in a world bristling with nuclear weapons, people do not feel secure. The balance of power is really a balance of terror, a suicide pact to which the world’s billions are involuntary signatories. If nuclear weapons are like the Damoclean sword, deterrence is the strand of hair that keeps it in check. But what if deterrence fails? The answer is too horrible to contemplate.

[Footnotes]

[Box on page 6]

THE POWER OF A ONE-MEGATON BOMB

Thermal Radiation (Light and Heat): A nuclear blast creates an intense flash of light that blinds or dazzles people far from the point of explosion​—up to 13 miles [21 km] in daytime and 53 miles [85 km] at night in a one-megaton blast.

At or near ground zero (the point directly under the exploding bomb), the intense heat of the fireball vaporizes humans. Farther away (up to 11 miles [18 km]), people suffer second- and third-degree burns on exposed skin. Clothing catches fire. Carpets and furniture ignite. Under certain conditions, a superheated fire storm develops, enveloping people in an inferno.

Air Blast: The nuclear blast generates hurricane-force winds. Near ground zero, destruction is total. Farther away, people in buildings are crushed by falling ceilings or walls; others are injured or killed by flying debris and furniture. Still others are suffocated by the dense dust of crushed mortar or brick. Wind overpressure causes eardrum rupture or hemorrhaging of the lungs.

Radiation: An intense burst of neutrons and gamma rays is emitted. Moderate exposure causes sickness characterized by nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Damage to blood cells lowers resistance to infection and delays the healing of injuries. High exposure to radiation causes convulsions, tremor, ataxia, and lethargy. Death follows within one to 48 hours.

Irradiated survivors are susceptible to cancer. They are also more likely to pass on hereditary defects to their offspring, including lowered fertility, spontaneous abortion, malformed or stillborn children, and nonspecific constitutional weaknesses.

Source: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons, printed by the United Nations.

Men Seek Solutions

“THE MAD [Mutual Assured Destruction] doctrine is immoral. There is something macabre, and worse, in basing our security on our ability to murder Russian women and children. And it is even more reprehensible​—if that’s possible—​to deliberately increase the exposure of our own people to nuclear destruction simply in order to fulfill the demands of an abstract, a historical, unproven and illogical theory.” These words, spoken by U.S. Senator William Armstrong, reflect the uneasiness many Americans feel about a defense based on the ability to retaliate.

As an alternative, in March 1983, U.S. President Reagan proposed the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), more popularly known as Star Wars. He said: “I call upon the scientific community who gave us nuclear weapons to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

Reagan envisioned the development of exotic, high-tech weapons​—X-ray lasers, electromagnetic rail-guns, kinetic-kill vehicles, neutral-particle-beam weapons—​that would defend America and its allies by zapping enemy missiles before they could reach their targets.

SDI, however, has been fiercely and widely debated from the outset. Opponents claim that it is technologically impossible to create a leakproof “umbrella” against a determined attack​—and a leaky “umbrella” is useless against nuclear weapons. Summing up other objections, a U.S. congressman said cynically that “other than the fact that the SDI system can be underflown, overwhelmed, outfoxed, cannot be run by humans but only by computers, would breach a number of arms control treaties and could trigger a thermal nuclear war, . . . it is not a bad system.”

The Soviet Union also strongly objects to SDI. They say that America simply wants to build a shield in order to wield the sword. U.S. officials, in turn, accuse the Soviets of secretly developing their own strategic defense system.

At any rate, SDI would prove extremely expensive to develop and deploy. Estimates range from 126 billion to 1.3 trillion U.S. dollars. By comparison, the entire U.S. Interstate Highway System cost $123 billion! Nevertheless, billions of dollars have already been allocated by the U.S. Congress to SDI research.

Prospect of Disarmament

Says the Soviet Ministry of Defense: “The Soviet people are convinced that nuclear disarmament is the most reliable guarantee that nuclear catastrophe will be prevented.” Lofty ideals notwithstanding, the arms race continues at full speed.

The fundamental obstacle to disarmament? Lack of trust. Soviet Military Power 1987, a U.S. Department of Defense publication, accuses the Soviet Union of ‘seeking world domination.’ Whence the Threat to Peace, published by the U.S.S.R. Ministry of Defense, speaks of the U.S. “imperial ambition to ‘rule the world.’”

Even when arms-control talks are convened, both sides accuse the other of having selfish motives. The above-quoted Soviet publication thus accuses the United States of “blocking progress toward disarmament in all areas” in an effort to “conduct international affairs from the position of strength.”

The United States counters that arms control is merely a Soviet scheme to lock in “existing military advantages. . . . Moreover, [Moscow] sees arms control negotiations as a way of furthering Soviet military objectives and undermining public support for Western defense policies and programs.”​—Soviet Military Power 1987.

The recent agreement to eliminate intermediate range missiles seems a giant step forward. It is the first agreement ever actually to reduce​—not simply limit—​nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, such a treaty, historic though it is, falls short of eliminating all nuclear weapons.

The Verification Problem

Suppose, though, that all the nuclear powers actually agreed to total disarmament. What would stop any or all nations from cheating​—failing to get rid of the banned weapons or secretly producing them?

Kenneth Adelman, former director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, said: “Elimination of nuclear weapons would require the most extensive and intrusive system of onsite inspections anyone could imagine. . . . That would mean, in turn, unprecedented openness to foreign intrusion on the part of all nations.” It is difficult to imagine that any nation would adopt such an open-house policy.

But let us further suppose that the nations somehow overcame all these formidable obstacles and disarmed. The technology and knowledge required to make the bomb would still exist. Should a conventional war break out, there would always be the possibility that it could escalate to the point where nuclear weapons would be recreated​—and used.

Hans Bethe, one of the physicists who worked to develop the first atom bomb, thus recently said: “We thought we could control the genie. It wouldn’t go back in the bottle, but there were reasonable grounds for thinking we could contain it. I know now that this was an illusion.”

[Picture on page 7]

Some argue that defending against a nuclear attack is superior to retaliating after an attack

An End to Nuclear Weapons​—How?

OURS is an age of anxiety. The marriage of science to warfare has produced thousands of weapons of inconceivably destructive power, indiscriminate killers that have the potential for annihilating humanity.

That man is so willing to slay his fellowman is disquieting. Yet, man’s murderous tendencies were manifested almost from the beginning. Reports the Bible: “So it came about that while they were in the field Cain proceeded to assault Abel his brother and kill him.” (Genesis 4:8) Man has been killing man ever since. And while it is true that since 1945 man has restrained his hand from using nuclear weapons in warfare, ours remains the most murderous century in history. Clearly, the problem is not the weapons themselves.

Causes and Remedies

Some scholars feel that since it is men who fight wars, the causes must be found in the nature of man himself. According to this view, men fight wars because of selfishness, stupidity, and misdirected aggressive impulses. Prescriptions vary, but many feel that peace can come only through changing the outlook and behavior of man himself.

Others say that since wars are fought between nations, the causes of war lie in the structure of the international political system. Because each sovereign state acts according to its own ambitions and desires, conflicts inevitably occur. Since there is no consistent, reliable way to reconcile differences, war breaks out.

In his analysis of the causes of war, scholar Kenneth Waltz observes that “a world government is the remedy for world war.” But he adds: “The remedy, though it may be unassailable in logic, is unattainable in practice.” Others agree. Author Ben Bova stated in Omni magazine: “The nations must unite into a single government that can control armaments and prevent war.” However, he also says: “Most people regard such a world government as pie in the sky, a science-fiction dream that can never come true.” The failure of the United Nations underscores this dismal conclusion. The nations have been unwilling to give up their sovereignty to that organization or any other!

World Government​—A Reality!

The Bible, however, assures us that God himself purposes a real world government. Millions have unwittingly prayed for this government when saying the Lord’s Prayer: “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” (Matthew 6:10) The Head of that Kingdom government is the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. The Bible promises regarding that government: “It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms,” or human governments.​—Daniel 2:44.

This world government will bring in true peace and security, not by nuclear deterrence nor through a sophisticated system of high-tech defensive weapons or shaky political treaties. Psalm 46:9 prophesies that Jehovah God “is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire.” This means the destruction of all weapons, including nuclear devices.

But what about the warlike nature of man himself? Under God’s heavenly government, earth’s inhabitants “will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4) Three million people today already live by this Bible text. They are Jehovah’s Witnesses.

These Witnesses live in over 200 lands and come from many ethnic groups. Before becoming true Christians, some of them were warlike, perhaps even vicious. But as a result of taking in knowledge of God, they now refuse to take up arms against one another or anyone else. Their neutrality in the face of political conflicts is a matter of historical record. The peaceful stand Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken internationally testifies to the fact that a world free of war and nuclear weapons is possible.

Millions of people living today were born in the nuclear age and expect to die in it​—if they do not die because of it. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not share that gloomy outlook. Their trust is put squarely in the Kingdom and in their God, Jehovah, with whom “no declaration will be an impossibility.”​—Luke 1:37.

[Picture on page 9]

The Bible prophesies that it is God who will put an end to weapons of war

[Picture on page 10]

Under God’s heavenly government, earth will be free of war and destructive weapons